Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus: A normal yet gentrifying district in Vienna?

Vienna is a model example of a socially diverse city in Central Europe and well-known for its achievements in social housing during the period popularly labelled "Red Vienna". Two thirds of Viennese households live in the subsidised housing sector. But does this mean that neighbourhoods do not change? After decades of mantra-like repetition of references to a stable, socially-mixed housing market in Vienna, the reality is a somewhat different picture: Neighbourhoods and entire districts are changing dynamically in terms of physical, social and economic composition. Even areas formerly considered deprived working-class are becoming more hip and are transformed into spaces for new residents, with alternative economic uses and new forms of social interaction. The development of Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus – better known as the 15th district - in Vienna is an example of this.

A district in continuous transformation: Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus in Vienna. (Source: author’s Picture, 2016)

Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus is located about five kilometres West of the iconic Viennese inner city (1st district) and its focal point, St. Stephan’s Cathedral. The earliest settlement dates back to 1411 and refers to the “suburbs” of Reindorf, Braunhirschen and Rustendorf. By 1863, these three villages were administratively united into Rudolfsheim (“Rudolf” for the Habsburg Crown Prince Rudolf and “Heim” for “home”). In 1890, Rudolfsheim was officially declared the 14th district of Vienna while Fünfhaus – located in the North – was the 15th district. In 1938, the districts were joined. Finally, in 1957, it became the 15th district as it is today: Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus (see Bezirksmuseum Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus).

Did you know that the Habsburgs were inspired by Paris? They numbered the Viennese districts like a snail-shell, beginning with the Inner City as the 1st district. Locals tend to refer to their district by the number, rather than the name. Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus is therefore just “the 15th” or in German “der Fünfzehnte”.

After World War II, many labour immigrants from former Yugoslavia and Turkey settled in the 15th district which at the time was characterised by small, run-down – yet affordable – apartments built before 1919 – the famous Viennese building period known as the “Gründerzeit” (founders’ period). The 15th district continues to have the highest proportion of non-Austrian residents. Among other reasons, its perception as a “migratory district” contributed to its bad image for a long period of time. Moreover, the negative image of the 15th district was further impacted by an active drug scene, comparably high crime rates and street prostitution. Furthermore, population decline in the central districts with outstanding dominant Gründerzeit structure continued until 2001 (Cluster 1) – including in the 15th district. From 2001 onwards, these districts in Vienna picked up steam and their populations began to grow again. However, the 15th has seen more dynamic growth than other districts with an outstanding Gründerzeit structrure post-2001 (see chart below).

The moment of change: The passage of the anti-prostitution law in Vienna in 2011

The introduction of a city-wide anti-prostitution law in 2011 constitutes a “turning point” for the negative image of the 15th district. Since then, street prostitution is strictly forbidden and the sense of personal safety has increased. Its image has continued to improve and a notable influx of students and younger, well-educated households is reported – less in terms of statistical data, based more on individual perception. The demographic changes go hand in hand with recently opened shops, galleries, bars and restaurants. Especially the areas of Reindorfgasse and Schwendermarkt in the Southern part of the 15th district have been represented in the media as a creative mecca in Vienna.

In addition, citywide population growth has had an impact on the housing stock: rent increases and rising property prices in the historic central districts and the 15th district can be observed. Nevertheless, the 15th district is still considered an affordable district with excellent inner city public transport connections that attracts students and highly educated families and small businesses.

Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus: Running the risk of gentrification, being gentrified already or never being gentrified at all? The reason for investigating in www.beyondgentrification.com.

Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus: From a former red light district towards a new creative bohemia?

The 15th district is known for four characteristics: It is the youngest, poorest, least educated and most ethnically diverse district in Vienna. Nowadays, the ethnic mix is mostly considered an outstanding and valuable characteristic of the district for all social groups living here. Nevertheless, an influx of young singles, students and well-educated families has been reported in recent years. The reasons newcomers give for the move mainly refer to comparably affordable rents, excellent public transport connections and the central location, as well as local amenities. However, statistical data does not reflect changes in social structure, so far.

The high share of foreign residents in the 15th district has been the case particularly since the beginning of the 1980s, with an increase from about 12% in 1981 to 34% in 2011. This is above the Viennese average (7.5% in 1981; 21.7% in 2011). The chart below illustrates the relatively high proportion of non-Austrian citizens in the 15th district compared to the cluster of districts with an outstanding dominant Gründerzeit structure. Whereas the latter and the 15th district began in 1981 at a similar level (9.8%), the districts with a similar Gründerzeit structure only raised to 23.9% non-Austrian citizens in 2011. The 15th district has the highest share of non-Austrian citizens in Vienna.

In 2011, 13.5% of all residents in the 15th district came from former Yugoslavia. The Turkish community represents 4.3% and EU member states make up 3.1%. Another 13.1 % came from various other countries in 2011. Nevertheless, almost two thirds (66%) of all residents in the 15th district hold Austrian citizenship.

See also the impact on a shrinking electorate in Vienna here on www.metropop.eu

Directions towards new residential groups?

The ethnic composition in the 15th district was considered problematic by the majority of residents until the end of the 2000s. Nowadays, the ethnic mix in the district is more tolerated as a “multicultural charm”. As already mentioned, the negative image of the 15th district was further impacted by an active drug scene, comparably high crime rates and street prostitution. In 2011, street prostitution was strictly prohibited by a citywide resolution. Since then, an influx of younger people, students and well-educated families has been reported in a majority of our interviews as well as in media coverage.

Gradually, the 15th district has become the youngest district in Vienna. The share of people aged between 20 and 34 has increased from 22.9% in 1981 to 26.7% in 2011 (similar districts with outstanding dominant Gründerzeit structure: 25.8% in 2011). The share of people older than 65 decreased by approximately 10% over three decades to 13.4% in 2011.

Another indication of the changing 15th district is education. People have the perception that more highly educated people are moving into the district. Statistical data paints another picture: One-third of residents from the 15th district only completed the most basic level of schooling. The share of this group decreased in line with the citywide trend from 1981 by approximately 10%. Despite that, 13% of the residents hold an academic degree. This share also increased in line with the citywide trend by 10% since 1981. However, the share of people with an academic education in the 15th district is significantly lower than in the other districts with a similar amount of Gründerzeit structure. There, residents with an academic degree exceed the number of residents with only compulsory education.

Implications of statistical evidence for gentrification?

Statistical data does not support the public perception that the 15th district is getting “more well-educated” and is already in the midst of gentrification with significant changes in socio-demographic data.

Nevertheless, compared to the city average, the district of Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus is still:

the youngest,

most ethnically diverse,

and least educated.

If you want to read more on the diversity as experienced in every day practice, please scroll down and dive into the social world of Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus.

Pratibha Karki | Palmgasse | seit eineinhalb Jahren im Bezirk | Gespräch am 14.08.2016 “I live nearby Westbahnhof and from there we can go anywhere. For that reason I was looking for an appartment in 15th district. (…) Before I was staying in the 12th district and 15th ist better than 12th. There are many shopping points like on Sundays we can go to the Merkur Minimarkt. I can also take my baby on an evening walk to the nearby Mariahilfer Straße. (…) In Vienna we are very busy, everyday we have to work, without work we can not live in Vienna. That´s why we have time every Saturday and Sunday and were we are coming here ( Längenfeldgasse) to meet, have a get-together. We bring nepali food, because we like it, it is our food. It is really nice to meet here, that´s one point. Second, normally women don´t have a choice: we have to go to work, we get back home and then we are with family and children. And this we do for us.”

Still the poorest district in Vienna? A local perspective on the socio-economic status.

Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus has a persisting reputation allegedly as one of Vienna’s most socio-economically disadvantaged districts. How truthful is this presumption? Do all parts of the district fall to the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum, or is there more inner diversity in Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus than commonly presumed?

Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus has the highest share of non-Austrian citizens amongst all Viennese districts and a share of academically educated inhabitants below city (see also our story From a former red light district towards a new creative bohemia?). But how homogenous is the district after all? In this story we take a look into the socio-economic status of the 15th district in a more detailed scale – on the level of the seven sub districts and the more detailed census districts covering areas of one to six city blocks. The resident base of individual census districts varies from 150 to 2500 inhabitants. We will explore the socio-economic position of the 15th district with two main indicators:

1. The educational level
2. The unemployment rate

The educational level is composed by the share of inhabitants holding an academic degree and the share of inhabitants with compulsory education as their highest education. The unemployment rate is defined as the share of unemployed inhabitants from the total labour force.

Higher educational level = sign of gentrification?

Besides rise in income level, growing level of education is a major indicator in detecting the progress of gentrification and the influx of new socio-economic groups. Over the last decades, the 15th district has followed the general trend in the city, as the share of inhabitants holding an academic degree has increased from the 1980’s onwards. Today, this share is highest in the north-eastern sub districts of Reithofferplatz (14.8 %) , Fünfhaus-Westbahnhof (14.3 %), and Stadthalle (14.0 %). Even these shares remain slightly smaller than the current city wide average laying in 15.3 %, and are left far from the comparison group of the old, dense inner city districts where on average 26.0 % of the population is academically educated. The educational levels of the inner districts are not met in the 15th district even on the census district level, where only few individual districts have a share of academically educated inhabitants exceeding 20 percent. Mirroring the growth in the shares of academically educated, the shares of inhabitants with compulsory education as their highest education have declined in all the sub districts. In 2011, this share was highest in the Sechshaus sub district.

On the sub district level, the share of inhabitants with an academic degree is lowest in the Schmelz area, where the average is brought down by several census districts with remarkably low shares. These census districts are generally small in area size, and consist predominantly of municipality housing. However, in Schmelz and in the surrounding northern sub districts the census district with little or no municipal housing have generally higher than average shares of academically educated inhabitants. This setting is somehow reversed in the southern sub districts, where majority of the census districts place lower than the district’s average. Especially in the Sechshaus sub districts the shares of academically educated inhabitants are consistently low without individual districts with extremely low values. In addition to being generally low, the shares of academically educated inhabitants in some parts of the Sechshaus sub district have grown much slower than the average in the 15th district in 1981-2011. The growth has been more moderate only in the northern census districts consisting solely of municipal housing. The highest shares of academically educated inhabitants are found in the area of the architecturally eminent Nibelungenviertel in the sub district of Stadthalle and in the immediate vicinity of the Auer-Welsbach-Park in the south-east of the district. The sub districts with the highest and lowest amount of inhabitants with compulsory education as the highest completed education do generally correspond to the ones with the lowest and highest shares of the academically.

Jugendstil-housing in the Kriemhildplatz. The census districts belonging to the area of the Nibelungenviertel have the district’s highest shares of academically educated and the lowest unemployment rates (Source: Own picture)

Municipal housing in the Stadthalle sub district. Characteristically to the municipal housing stock of the northern sub districts of Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus, the housing estate covers the area of an entire city block (Source: own picture)

Shifts in the unemployment rate

Since the 1990s, the unemployment rate has been slightly growing on the district level. This development has not affected all the sub districts as directly as the general increase in the level of education. In 2011, the sub districts of Reithofferplatz and Fünfhaus-Westbahnhhof – featuring in 1991 the district’s highest unemployment rates – showed an unemployment rate lower than the district’s average (12.3 %). The unemployment rate is highest in the Sechshaus sub district (13.1 %), but has increased most from 1991 to 2011 in the sub districts of Rudolfsheim-Braunkirchen and Stadthalle. On the whole, the variation between the sub district level unemployment rates has over the last twenty years decreased, and is non-existent compared to the variation in the more detailed census district level.

Looking at the census district level, the local unemployment levels correlate substantially with the low shares of academically educated inhabitants. Especially the districts with the highest unemployment rates are roughly the same as the ones with the lowest shares of inhabitants holding an academic degree – these districts by rule being small and consisting exclusively of municipal housing. From the areas with little or no municipal housing, the most southernmost census districts in the Sechshaus next to the heavily trafficked Linke Wienzeile stand out with their high unemployment rates.

In the southern sub district of Rudolfsheim-Braunhirschen the housing stock in the immediate vicinity of the Auer-Welsbach-Park stands out with its high share of inhabitants with an academic degree (Source: own picture)

One district, different evidences for gentrification?

The sub districts in the southern part of the 15th district share a relatively homogenous socio-economic structure, while the northern part has more inner diversity. The northern part of the district is characterized by pockets of considerably low and respectively relatively high socio-economic status. This observation is explained, interestingly enough, by historical context and changes in the prevailing urban policies and architectural style guiding the development of subsidized housing. In the northern half of the district, especially in the Schmelz and Stadthalle sub districts, majority of the municipal housing dates back to the 1920’s, 1930’s and 1950’s. True to the planning ideologies of these decades, the housing complexes are extensive and clustered together to form entire city blocks. Due to the size and vicinity of these complexes, many census districts in the area consist exclusively of municipal housing. However, in the southern part of Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus majority of the municipality housing dates back to the 1970’s and 1980’s, and has been incorporated into the urban structure as individually standing apartment buildings. More scattered between different census districts, municipal housing in the southern sub districts does not dominate individual census districts as it does in the north. Considering this setting, it is easy to see how the socio-economically most disadvantaged areas in the northern sub districts correspond to the areas with extensive municipal housing. Some of the areas with mostly private housing, on the other hand, have the district’s best socio-economic positions.

Looking past the census district comprised solely or mostly of municipal housing, we notice that the socio-economically most disadvantaged census districts are located in the southern part of Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus. Especially in the sub district of Sechshaus several census districts are characterized by both high unemployment and low educational level. Although the share of substandard apartments does not by rule correlate with the socio-economic indicators discussed here, these census districts do also have high shares of substandard dwellings. On the other end of the socio-economic spectrum, the area of the historic Nibelungenviertel in the Stadthalle sub district has a socio-economic status unlike any other part of the district. Even this area is does not reach the educational level and low unemployment rate of the inner districts neighboring Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus in the East, but places on these two indicators higher than the city’s average.

Besides causes related to the inner diversity the 15th district’s urban structure, also the influence of the nearby districts is detectable both on the sub and census district levels. Many of the areas which have experienced the highest upgrade in their socio-economic status over the last decades are situated in the eastern and north-eastern parts of the district. Taking in account also the general improvement in the housing conditions in these areas, this development would suggest gentrification proceeding slowly outwards from the inner districts into the eastern parts of the 15th district.

The Sechshaus sub district has the district’s highest unemployment rate (Source: own picture)

Pockets of inner diversity

Although district level statistical data doesn’t suggest gentrification detected by socio-economic indicators, analysis on a more detailed scale implicates more inner diversity. Especially entering the census district level shows several pockets of considerably higher and lower than average socio-economic stand within the census districts.

The census districts with the highest share of academically educated and the lowest unemployment rate are all unique and can’t be straightforwardly categorized by their other characteristics. The following qualities, however, are associated with many of these areas:

“Not moaning on a high level, but becoming active”: Social mixing and emerging activation practices at Schwendermarkt.

Hardly anyone in Vienna knows the Schwendermarkt in Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus, although it gained popularity as being the oldest daily street market in Vienna. Established as a former fish market in 1833, its popularity decreased over time.

Not only due to physical decay, but also because of structural changes in food supply – the emergence of supermarkets – and consumption behaviour. It seems easily comprehensible that an increasingly vacant market might be ready for change. At least, district politics assumed that there is the time for change in order to improve the built environment in the neighbourhood.

The visual change of Schwendermarkt. From back then to emerging new spaces of encounter for the local community (Sources: First picture, http://ww1.habsburger.net; all others: own pictures)

During the silly season (in German “Sommerloch”) of 2013, the local government announced the physical redevelopment of Schwendermarkt as this place seemed to be underused and no interactions were taking place that might be of support for a vibrant neighbourhood life. Local media interpreted this announcement as a “demolition” of the market. Unsurprisingly, the remaining market stall owners feared the loss of their economic base. But more surprisingly, residents articulated also a fear – meaning: the loss of identification and the loss of an important place for social contacts.

„I like the Schwendermarkt. It has been changing since the last year in a positive way. I was sitting there, before. You can meet there the residents from the 15th district, but there are also public movie events and nice eating stalls.” (Longterm resident)

A collective resistance developed resulting in a petition signed by local entrepreneurs, residents and community initiatives. This petition aimed at preserving the Schwendermarkt as a “non-obvious” but important space for social interaction. The collective practice of resistance also formulated the need to recognize “hidden non-commercialized spaces” as important for the neighbourhood and to involve the local neighbourhood in planning decisions.

Interestingly, the local media covered the collective resistance as “community activism” which had a huge impact: Due to upcoming elections, local politicians feared a loss of votes and recognized the need for a more integrative approach in planning decisions. As a result, an official civic participation campaign was established accompanied by the designation of a new urban renewal zone – which basically provides more financial subsidies for physical redevelopment and improvement of public space. All of these actions have been discussed in regular round tables formed by the entire chain of local actors. Here, not only the importance of social mixing has been discussed conceptually. Rather, the social mixing and activities on the market seem to increase continuously, also.

This revival of Schwendermarkt is currently covered as “positive gentrification” in local media. Residents refer to the over-optimistic media coverage in two ways: One group is reacting to “evidences of gentrification” with a fear of expensive hipster restaurants and increasing rents. The other group is referring to the positive changes in a former “no-go neighbourhood”. Interestingly, real estate investors are taking up the “positive spirit” at Schwendermarkt by branding the place as a market “where old and new coexists”.

One can learn a lot from the case of Schwendermarkt. As resident you may be interested in your possibilities to interact and participate, entrepreneurs and community initiatives might use the momentum to find an audience for their messages. More interestingly, policymakers and planners might see the Schwendermarkt as “social laboratory” that reveals starting points for their work:

Policymakers need to have an „antenna“ for singular, disruptive events in the neighbourhood.

And, – even more – the capability to embed those singular events into framing conditions.

There is no such thing like a repetitive manner or „travelling concept“.

Social mixing cannot be designed or planned.

However – and this might be of great importance to not abandon the positive potential on social mixing in upgrading neighbourhoods: The conditions for social mix have to be supported, meaning:

#rudolfscrime

Transforming commercial landscape: From imperial craftsmen to new creative shops

As in many cases of urban development in Vienna, all began with the Habsburg Monarchy. Workplaces, daily markets and the commercial landscape in general have a long history in Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus due to their location along important traffic routes of the former Habsburg Monarchy. Since the dawn of the 20th century, the 15th district has been a viable working class district. However, after World War II, a commercial decline started. More and more shops and workplaces were relocated or closed. Only recently, new restaurants, cafes, bars and shared working spaces are emerging and producing a new commercial landscape supporting the new image of the 15th district as being lively, vibrant and a “hidden” mecca of creative entrepreneurs. Unsurprisingly, first notions of starting gentrification can be identified in the public debate, too.

During the early phase of industrialization, the Southern part of the 15th district transformed from its rural character with wine yards into a densely populated working class district. One industrial cluster was located around the area of Gasgasse, South of today’s location of ‘Westbahnhof’. At the Southern border of the district – along the Vienna river – a textile industry cluster emerged including weavers, bleachers and dye works. Also, other craftsmen settled here (see Festschrift 600 Jahre Reindorfgasse). However, the transport routes have remained to be the most influential drivers for transformation. The Mariahilfer Straße, for example, was a major horse-drawn post road to the Western parts of the Habsburg monarchy. Therefore, many restaurants, hotels and craftsmen supporting the transport sector settled along this street. This development was further boosted by the opening of Westbahnhof and the electrification of the railway to the West in 1858. (see Bezirksmuseum Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus)

Amusement and travel trade in an early suburb

During that period, the Southern part was also known for its big amusement clubs and pub gardens hosting concerts, summer parties and masquerade balls. Many small-scaled shops, restaurants and grocery stores for the working class settled around Reindorfgasse which served as an artisanal street connecting the factories located at the Vienna River and the accommodations of the workers. The vibrancy of the neighbourhood was also enhanced by the Schwendermarkt – the oldest daily street market in Vienna established in 1833. (see Festschrift 600 Jahre Reindorfgasse)

Commercial and economic decline from the 1970s onwards: The role of shopping malls.

After World War II, the revitalisation of small shops and grocery stores brought only a short economic ease in the 15th district. The out-movement of residents, ongoing motorization, as well as structural changes in food and retail supply forced the closing of many workplaces and commercial supply from the 1970s onwards. As a result, a remarkable number of vacant shops was left.

Nevertheless, interviewed residents blame shopping malls for the decline of small inner city shops and restaurants since three major shopping malls are located in the 15th district: Meiselmarkt, Lugner City and the mall located in the redeveloped Westbahnhof.

Lugner City is located in the Northern part of the 15th district. With its chain stores, food court and cinema it is very popular predominantly amongst migrants and the working class from across Vienna. To the contrary, the shopping mall in Westbahnhof is used by a “floating mix” consisting of tourists, passengers and youngsters from the neighbourhood.

Äußere Mariahilferstraße, one of the major shopping streets in the 15th district, is starting at Westbahnhof. With the opening of the redeveloped train station in 2011, new restaurants ranging from upscale ethnic to corporate cafes have settled and reside nowadays next to cheap fast food shops, hotels and various retail shops. The vibrant part of the shopping street around Westbahnhof is characterized dominantly by tourists, employees and shoppers due to the presence of hotels, workplaces and the nearby metro station. Nevertheless, the street becomes commercially more quiet if one walks West.

Märzstraße, located in the Southern part of the district, looks totally different. This commercial street is mostly known for its immigrant businesses and restaurants ranging from Turkish to Ex-Yugoslavian restaurants and bars.

To get an overview on shopping malls, shopping streets and daily street markets of the district see the following map:

The most remarkable change of a shopping street is currently ongoing at Reindorfgasse. Within the last 5 years, new creative shops, galleries, bars and restaurants have been opening. They mix with old-Viennese restaurants as well as ethnic shops and cafes in the village-like street. The rejuvenation process in Reindorfgasse is already spreading to the nearby Sparkasseplatz as well as to Schwendermarkt. Media are already referring to Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus as an ‘upcoming and creative district’.

Not only media, but also politicians are referring to this development as a success. Intermediate policymakers such as the Viennese Business Agency have an interest in doing so as this institution is funding the network project Einfach 15 in Reindorfgasse.

We will publish an in-depth story on the area around Reindorfgasse, soon. Stories on the developments of shops, workplaces, cafes and restaurants will also be added. Come back and read more.

At a glance: The present economic situation of residents in the 15th district.

Mostly elderly people and immigrant workers remained living in the district. Whereas the share of people aged over 65 years gradually decreased from nearly 25% in 1981 to 14 % in 2011, the share of immigrants raised to 34% in 2011. In relation to that, residents reported that it is not surprising that shops are closing down due to a lack of purchasing power. This collective memory is supported by statistics indicating the 15th district as the poorest district compared to other Viennese districts for years.

The strata of the total income (wage and other incomes), however, offer a more nuanced picture. Whereas the share of people in the 15th earning less than 6,000 € gross is quite comparable to the historic central districts (approx. 14%), the share of people earning between 6,000 and 25,000 € is above the Viennese average and in the historic central districts. Most strikingly, the share of people in the highest income class is nearly half the size of city average. Only 5% of residents in the 15th district have an income of more than 50,000 € per year (15% in the old, dense inner districts and 10% citywide).

To conclude, the 15th district shows a comparably solid base of middle incomes. If this can be used as a proxy for gentrification has to be seen in the context of general living costs such as housing, education, or expenses for daily needs.

“Residents are now also apprehensive about the impact of so-called healthy food stores moving into their neighborhood (often with the approval of elected officials) because they signal to developers, real estate agents, and outside residents that it is ‘‘ready’’ to be re-developed“ (Anguelovski 2015: 185).

#rudolfsheimfuenfhaus

Show us your Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus: Include #rudolfsheimfuenfhaus and be part of the community.

property

Real estate property in Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus: An affordable district on its turn?

Vienna is famous for its large housing stock in social housing that stabilizes the prices for rent and property citywide. However, housing prices are increasing - both for rents and for real estate property. Reasons can be found in the spatial distribution of social housing, continuous growth of population, limited building land reserves and increasing building costs. If we consider a conservative population growth estimate of 20,000 newcomers / year, 10,000 new apartments are needed per year. However, the share of newly constructed apartments in 2015 amount to only 7,500 units. How does this framework condition impact the housing market of Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus?

The 15th district is one of the typical districts in Vienna that are dominated by buildings from the Gründerzeit (founder’s period). In 2011, 55% of the 3,117 buildings in the 15th district were built before 1919. Nevertheless, the spatial concentration of buildings from the Gründerzeit is not equally distributed across the district.

Within the debate of gentrification one has to ask: Why does the age of the housing stock play an important role? In gentrification research this aspect is related to “aesthetics” and lifestyle preferences of the so-called “gentrifiers” (see, for instance: David Ley, 2003, Artists, Aestheticisation and the Field of Gentrification).

In the case of Vienna, the common notion of “the well-offs are living in the historic building stock” applies as well. Higher income households may prefer the aesthetic, like the size of the apartments, height of the rooms, or the decoration of the interiors. In addition, buildings from the Gründerzeit are a contested field of investment amongst real estate actors who assume an increase of value after renovation and who follow mainly the strategy of converting former rental into ownership apartments.

However, we found out that the main reason why residents choose the 15th district to live is due to affordability. It is steadily reported that the 15th district is still more affordable compared to other inner-city districts 1 to 9. If we look at the physical quality of the dwelling stock, another component contributes to the “affordability” argument in the 15th district: The lowest dwelling standard is Category D and is used for apartments that either do not have a toilet or do not have running water within the dwelling (see the explanation of other categories in the chart below). Contrary to other Viennese districts with a substantial share of Gründerzeit structure, the number of lowest standard apartments is still comparably high in the 15th district. Although the number of Category D dwellings decreased significantly from nearly 40% in 1991 to below 18% in 2011, the number is still 10% higher compared to the whole of Vienna.

One main indicator of gentrification is the increase in apartment ownership. Still, Vienna is known as the “city of renters”. In the 15th district, about 80% of the residents rent their apartments. This number has been very stable since 1981. Compared to other Viennese districts with high shares of Gründerzeit structure, the share of renters (75%) is slightly lower than in the 15th. On the other hand, comparably fewer people own their apartments. Only a stable share of 12% lives in the 15th district as home owners.

Again, home-ownership as a “proxy for gentrification” currently indicates only minor evidence for gentrification in the 15th district. The spatial distribution within the 15th district, however, shows a great variety (select property in the main map at the head of this page for details).

In terms of housing affordability, one major explanation of Vienna’s affordable housing market is the damping effect of the social housing stock. This has to be questioned in the 15th district where the share of dwellings that are categorized as social housing is nearly 10% lower compared to citywide shares (26.2%). Nevertheless, the share is still higher than in other Gründerzeit dominated districts. Social housing apartments are either owned by non-profit housing associations or the Municipality of Vienna. As a result, approximately 26% total of the dwelling stock is rent controlled in the 15th district – not taking into account the rent control of Gründerzeit apartments.

In addition, the share of dwellings held as private property is quite similar to the inner city districts. One major difference can be found in the relatively small share of dwellings held by corporate bodies. This may be an indicator that professional investors are not yet investing in the 15th district.

To conclude, we may confirm that the social housing sector dampens the rents effectively, because there are no major structural differences compared to the other districts. Housing in the 15th district is comparably affordable, at the moment. However, this observation does not apply to the newly built rental sector (which is not rent-controlled at all) neither to the real estate property market where purchase prices follow the logic of profit maximization.

No room for single households? Housing stock in change

Today, the general amount of residential dwellings in Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus does not greatly differ from that in early 1980’s. Nevertheless, the last decades have nevertheless led to a larger structural change, as the modernization of the district’s housing stock has drastically altered the availability of diverse apartment types. The share of smaller, 1- or 2- room apartments has gradually decreased, as dwellings have been merged in order to increase the occupancy rate.

The amount of residential dwellings located in Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus has increased from the early 1980’s to 2011 by mere 2.6 %, as the total number of dwellings in 1981 (40,406) is close to that of 2011 (41,465). The past three decades in the development of the district’s housing stock have still been far from stable, as the redevelopment and modernization of the district’s predominantly pre-war housing stock have reshaped its structure. Although 9.0 % of the district’s building stock was constructed over this period of time, the total number of residential dwellings decreased by 18.5 % from 1981 to 2001, and begun to increase again from 2001 onwards. All the seven sub districts of Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus were affected by this development, as exemplified by the adjoined diagram.

Although the general amount of dwellings in the district has been on an upward trajectory since the early 2000’s, the development within the district remains more scattered. Observation on the census district level lets us see, how both negative and positive growth in the number of dwellings from 1981 to 2011 is locally distributed. As featured in the map below, negative values in the change of the housing stock indicate extensive redevelopment by demolition or coupling of small apartments, and positive values mark areas where new build developments have exceeded the loss of older housing stock. On this census district level, the change in the total amount of residential dwellings is easily affected by individual development projects and varies within individual pockets of considerably high increase or decrease in the total share of dwellings. As to be expected, increase in the total amount of dwellings is generally highest in the areas where the shares of buildings constructed in 1981 – 2011 are the highest. Areas with extreme decrease in the total amount of dwellings in 1981 – 2011 are generally locations with extensive non-residential development, such as the extension of the Viennese City Hall complex in the sub district of Stadthalle, which has resulted in the level of individual census district’s in as high as a 36.6 % decrease in the total amount of residential dwellings.

Besides the extensive improvement of the apartment conditions, the most remarkable structural change in the housing stock of Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus since the 1980’s has been the large scale change in the shares of different apartment types. The general increase of the occupancy rate has proceeded hand in hand with the modernization of the district’s sub-standard housing stock, as small apartments have been combined to create more spacious dwellings. At the same time the new-build housing construction has for its part balanced the existing housing stock by catering to the diverse needs of the housing market. These developments have considerably decreased the share of smaller one or two room apartments and respectively increased the share of larger apartments consisting of three to five rooms. Although still marginal in the total amount of the district’s housing stock, also the share of large apartments with six or more rooms has increased from nearly non-existing to several percentages district wide. As a result of this process, in 2011 over sixty percent of the district’s housing stock consists of three or five room family apartments with slight variation between the shares in different sub districts.

Coupling of smaller apartments has above all lowered both the share and the total number of studio (one room) apartments in the district. In 1981 more than a third of all dwellings in Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus were studio apartments, with individual census districts where nearly half of the housing stock comprised of studio apartments. The share of studio apartments decreased rapidly over the 1980’s and 1990’s (from 38.6 % in 1981 to 28.3 % in 1991 and 13.9 % in 2001). Since the 2000’s the decrease seems to have settled, resulting in a situation where in 2011 roughly every seventh dwelling (13.7 %) in the district was a studio apartment.

The minor variation in the sub district level comparison of the shares of different apartment types is overshadowed by the unitary change between the comparison years 1981 and 2011. Still, it is worth noting how certain local characteristics persist throughout this change. For example, the sub districts of Rauscherplatz stretching several blocks west and south from Meiselmarkt and Reithofferplatz bordering the northern side of the Westbahnhof remain as the sub districts with the highest shares of small apartments, and the south western sub district of Rudolfsheim-Braunhirshen consistently has the highest shares of larger dwellings.

Looking at the census district level, on the other hand, we notice that pockets of higher shares of small apartments still persist in the district – in clusters of census districts where studio apartments comprise nearly 30 % of the total housing stock. These areas generally correspond to the census districts with the highest shares of surviving substandard (category D) apartments.(link here), and have a lower than the district’s average share of larger apartments. The census districts with the highest shares of studio apartments in 2011 are not fully equivalent to the ones with the highest shares in 1981, which feature individual census districts with 80 % shares of studio apartments. The development of these census districts has generally followed two distinct paths – they either remain as areas of notably high shares of small apartments, or have gone through extensive redevelopment and resemble the district’s average division of different sized apartments.

Interestingly, it seems that the decade long efforts on modernizing the district’s housing stock have reached a saturation level of some sort. Interviews with property investors working in Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus suggest, that the current renovation practices are no longer in sync with the market’s demands. According to one interviewee, the city officials responsible for the subsidized renovation scheme still favor larger dwellings via merging of smaller apartments. However, the market feedback gathered through housing search engines points towards a high demand for smaller and more affordable apartments.

“On the other side, we do have an enormous demand in 40qm apartments. The reason is that we do have 47% single households including mother-child-households in Vienna. The latter is mainly neglected in the subsidized renovation system.” (Institutional investor)

Although the shares of different types of dwellings have considerably changed in Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus over the last three decades, in a city wide comparison the district still stands out with its relatively high share of housing stock consisting of smaller one or two room apartments. Similarly the share of large apartments consisting of six or more apartments remains considerably lower than in the city average or the average of the denser inner district’s with in many parts similarly aged housing stock. For its part, this notion indicates how Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus does not yet match the appeal of the socio economically better off inner districts for the wealthiest part of the city’s resident base. Nevertheless, over the last decades the changes in the housing stock of the district have generally followed the path set by the neighboring inner districts.

Studio apartments for sale and for rent – examples of online housing ads in Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus

#rh5h

Advocating for the future: soft urban renewal, questionnaires and local engagement

As a traditional working class district, Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus has always been one of the Social Democratic strongholds in Vienna. Since 1946, the elected district mayor has always been an ambassador of the Social Democratic Party. In practice, several policies are enacted at district level but also at the citywide level. At local level, different associations and citizens’ groups are advocating, with different methods, their ideas for the future of the 15th district.

Until 1996, the Social Democratic Party (SPÖ) had run the district with an absolute majority. Except for 2005, the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) has been the second strongest party after the Social Democratic Party from the 1990s onwards. The votes for the Green Party have been constantly rising from 1991. Nowadays, the Green Party is the third strongest party in the district council with nearly 22% and is holding 11 seats. As in other census districts in Vienna, the demographic change towards a younger urban society is applied as an explanation for the rise of the Green Party and ‘The New Austria’ party (NEOS). The NEOS were elected the first time in 2015 to the district parliament in the 15th district.

In the gentrification debate, voters of these more progressive and rather liberally oriented parties are often ascribed to the gentrifying middle class. However, only partial evidence seems to support this explanation.

Large-scale transport infrastructure projects have impacted the 15th district from its very beginning. The list ranges from the opening of the historic Westbahnhof in 1858 to the transformation of the historic Viennese light rail system (“Stadtbahn”) into the metro lines 4 and 6 (opening of the metro station Längenfeldgasse and modernized Westbahnhof in 1989) as well as to the extension of the metro line 3 in 1994 through the Northern part of the district. These ‘top-down’ policy decisions at city level contributed to a very good connection to inner city transport inducing many new residents to move into the 15th district. With a city wide bill, street prostitution was banned from the district in 2011 and changed the image of the 15th district dramatically. The passing of the bill was accompanied by pressure from worried residents upon local politicians and demonstrated that the residents of the 15th districts have power, too.

The biggest block renewal area in Vienna

Due to its old housing stock and its potential for renovation, the ‘Soft Urban Renewal’ programme is one of the major housing policies by the Social Democratic Party currently enacted in the 15th district. This city-wide, social democratic core strategy is practiced in close cooperation with the local ‘Urban Renewal Office’ and aims at the sustainable redevelopment of neighbourhoods without displacing residents.

In the 15th district, designated subsidized redevelopment areas are currently located in the Southern part of the district. From 2010 to 2014 the area “Sechshaus” between Sechshauser Straße und Linker Wienzeile was designated for subsidized renewal – making it more likely to receive public subsidies for renovation of Gründerzeit buildings. In 2014, preparations for the redevelopment of the area of Reindorf and Rustendorf started. This new redevelopment area consists of 4 sub-areas and includes 35 building blocks and 365 properties. As such, it is the biggest urban renewal area designated for block renovation in Vienna.

Adaptation of public spaces through residents’ participation

At the local level, one prominent district policy refers to the adaptation of public spaces and squares. In doing that, the district council in the 15th district assigned the Urban Renewal Office and social workers to apply a questionnaire survey in order to grasp the desires of residents using public space – for instance the Wasserwelt or Schwendermarkt.

Nevertheless, local residents and entrepreneurs are in need of support when they become active citizens and shape their local neighbourhoods. Such as Einfach 15 – a network of entrepreneurs and residents around Reindorfgasse, Sparkassaplatz and Schwendermarkt who aim at strengthening and revitalizing the social and economic base of the neighbourhood. Their approach highlights the cooperation and the local engagement of stakeholders. The network is funded as a business development area by the Vienna Business Agency. However, as the association is supported by many young residents and entrepreneurs, it seems to be a challenge to involve older and established generations of residents and entrepreneurs.

“Because they all vote for the Greens”: Rise of liberal politics – indication of the gentrifying class?

In the Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus, the increasing popularity of progressive and liberal political parties has been attributed to the emerge of new, young, educated urban population. Does demographic data support this assumption?

Many scholars in the gentrification debate see a link between neighbourhoods and voting behaviour of the newcomers (see for instance De Maesschal 2010; Charney & Malkinson 2015). Discussed with the socio-economic indicators commonly attributed to the gentrifying middle class, votingl behaviour can help to point out ideologies and values associated with the named group. Especially progressive and liberally oriented politics are often seen to be the most appealing for the gentrifying middle class.

In the Austrian political field, these qualities are best found in the political agenda’s of the well-established Green Party (Die Grünen) and the newly founded NEOS party (the New Austria). In the Viennese context the coupling of the gentrifying class and Green Party voters is also grounded in the party’s unwavering popularity in the city’s fully gentrified inner districts. In this story, the popularity of these parties is followed through their success in the Vienna District Council elections. These elections determining the political compostion of the 23 District Councils are held every five years in conjunction with the Municipal elections.

The district office of the 15th district’s Green Party is located in the Kriemhildplatz in the heart of the historic Nibelungenviertel (source: own picture 2016).

Against the general trend – the increasing popularity of the Green Party in the 15th district

The city-wide popularity of the Green Party decreased from the District Council elections of 2005 (15.7 %) to the elections of 2015 (14.9. %). Similar shift was noticeable in the 2005 and 2015 Municipal elections, where the city-wide vote for the Green Party decreased from 14.6 % to 11.8 %. The shares of won votes in District Council Elections slightly decreased also in the comparison group of districts with an outstanding dominant Gründerzeit structure (1., 2., 4., 5., 6., 7., 8., 9. and 18. district) with generally high shares of Green Party voters ( from 26.3 % in 2005 to 25.8 % in 2015).

Just a quick look at the adjoining map visualizing all the electoral wards of Vienna tells that the Austrian Green Party is still first and foremost an urban political party. Parallels between Green Party voters and urban-seeking residents are obvious with one noticeably exception – the below the city average share of Green Party voters in the 1st inner district. ”The city” enclosing the city center of Vienna and the main historic attractions has a distinct socio-econimic composition differing from the surrounding urban areas.

The greatest concentrations of residents supporting the Green Party are located in the outer inner city districts. The 15th district – on the outer rim of the dense inner city districts – joins this core area with its Eastern part. Noticeably, the gentrified 7th district bordering the 15th district on its Eastern side has had the city’s highest share of Green Party voters in the last District Council elections (43.3 % in 2005 and 41.0 % in 2015).

Did you know that everyone can participate in the regular assembly of the district government. It is huge fun, find upcoming dates by clicking here.

Within this general trend, it is interesting to notice that the popularity of the Green Party grew in the 15th district as it gained 17.6 % of the vote in 2005 and 21.2 % in 2015 District elections – (with the share of won votes in the respective years’ Municipal elections growing from 16.4 % to 17.2 %). In 2016, the Green Party holds 11 of the 50 seats in the District Council of the 15th district, which makes it the third biggest party after the Social Democratic Party (SPÖ) with 20 seats and the Freedom Party (FPÖ) with 13 seats.

In 2015, the share of Green Party voters was highest in the Eastern part of the district. A distinct cluster of electoral wards with the high shares of Green voters was located between the Westbanhof and the Eastern end of Hütteldorferstrasse. Here, some individual electoral wards had nearly one third of their votes cast for the Green Party. The comparison between the visualized results of the 2015 and 2005 District Council elections shows how the percentage of votes won by the Green Party has grown in majority of the electoral wards. The inclination towards the Eastern part of the district is present also in the results of the 2005 election, but appears to have somewhat become more established. The already existing concentration of wards with high share of Green Party voters south of Hütteldorferstrasse has noticeably grown between the two elections.

Who are the Green Party voters in Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus?

The popularity of the Green Party was lowest in some of the North-Western electoral wards accomodating a considerable amount of subsidized housing. This is not surprising, as the popularity of the ruling Social Democratic Party has been consistently high amongst residents of subsidized housing estates.
Looking at the district’s demographic structure, the share of votes won by the Green Party appears to correlate most with a high educational level and a high share of relatively young residents.The percentage of Green Party voters is generally highest in areas where the shares of residents belonging to the age groups of 20 – 34 years and 35 – 44 years are the highest. For the age group of 20 – 34 year olds this means the Eastern half of the district, and for the older age group the Northern part of the district with emphasis on the North-Eastern part. Also the election wards with the highest shares of Green Party voters appear to be located in areas with generally high shares of resident with an academic (tertiary) education.
Spatial parallels between these variables suggest a connection between support for the Green Party and gentrifying groups. High level of education and belonging to the age groups of young professionals working or entering the working life are well known indicators for the gentrifying groups.
It is also worth noting that the densest cluster of electoral wards with high share of votes won by the Green Party surrounding the Eastern part of Hütteldorfergasse is simultaneously the part of the district with the highest shares of old housing stock. In this part of the district housing constructed prior to 1919 constitutes generally over 70 % of the total housing stock – a quality shared with the inner districts.

Founded in 2013, the NEOS has established itself especially in inner city districts areas with traditionally strong Green Party voter base. In the 15th district, the NEOS won two seats in their first District Council elections in 2015 by gaining 4.5 % of the votes.

On the level of individual electoral wards, the share of votes won by the NEOS varies from one to eight percent. These shares are considerably lower than those reached by the Green Party, and are not high enough to scetch out the demographic characteristics of a NEOS voter. Visualized on a map, the individual electoral wards with highest shares of votes cast for the party seem to be scattered more randomly than the wards with highest shares of Green Party voters, which have a definite incline towards the Eastern part of the district.

Political stand itself, like any socio-economic indicator, does not suggest gentrification. It can, however, provide some insight to the set of values treasured by groups otherwise reminding of the gentrifying class.

In the 15th district, the growing popularity of liberal politics needs to be seen as part of the larger socio-economic shift advancing over the last decades. The general educational level of the district has steadily grown, the unemployment rate decreased and the housing standards gradually improved. Judging from these general developments, parts of the 15th district are increasingly sharing qualities with the neighboring inner districts. Looking at the increasing popularity of the Green Party, it would appear that besides socio-economic change the district’s resident base is also undergoing steadily progressing ideological diversification. This observation is also supported by the notion that the Green Party’s popularity has lately been highest on areas with the highest shares of young, well-educated residents fitting the socio-economic characteristics associated with the gentrifying class.

However, it is good to remember that the 15th district has an considerable amount of inner diversity considering both the voting behaviour and socio-economic composition of different parts of the district. And despite all evidences towards more progressive politics: The 15th districit remains to be the district in Vienna with the highest share of residents NOT being entitled to vote. Read more on the “shrinking electorate” on metropop.eu